A/HRC/39/19 with severe mental impairment was a cruel and unusual punishment. 152 It stated that, in the absence of sentencing discretion in murder cases, the presidential power of mercy was a sufficient mechanism to ensure that those with such disabilities were not subjected to the death penalty. 153 In 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted prisoners the assistance of an independent mental health expert154 and declared the practice in Texas of evaluating intellectual disability unconstitutional. 155 In June 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the State’s use of a strict IQ cut-off as a prerequisite to finding a defendant intellectually disabled.156 44. Nevertheless, persons with mental or intellectual disabilities reportedly were under sentence of death, including in Ghana, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Maldives, Pakistan, Singapore and the United States.157 During the reporting period, the Human Rights Committee stated that Pakistan should take all measures necessary to ensure that no one with serious psychosocial or intellectual disabilities was executed or sentenced to death, including by establishing an independent mechanism to review all cases where there was credible evidence that prisoners facing the death penalty had such disabilities. 158 In 2016, special procedure mandate holders recalled that persons with mental disabilities frequently faced the risk of being sentenced to death and executed in breach of international standards, and that “States must do their utmost to address this risk, including by providing accommodation during all phases of legal proceedings, and by granting adequate protection from any form of discrimination against them because of their mental health condition”. 159 In July 2017, special procedure mandate holders issued an urgent appeal for the State of Virginia in the United States to halt the planned execution of a man with psychosocial disability.160 45. In May 2017, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was concerned that in the Islamic Republic of Iran persons with disabilities, particularly persons with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities, could face a greater risk of the death penalty due to lack of procedural accommodations in criminal proceedings.161 VI. Human rights of children of parents sentenced to the death penalty or executed 46. Pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 22/11, the present report includes information on the human rights of children of parents sentenced to the death penalty or executed. In its resolution 30/5 on the question of the death penalty, the Council acknowledged the rights of children of parents sentenced to death or executed. It called upon States to ensure that children whose parents or parental caregivers were on death row, the inmates themselves, their families and their legal representatives were provided, in advance, with adequate information about a pending execution, its date, time and location, and to allow a last visit or 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 Pitman & Hernandez v. The State (Trinidad and Tobago), 23 March 2017. Ibid. McWilliams v. Dunn (2017). Moore v. Texas (2017). Woodall v. Kentucky, 14 June 2018. Submissions by Justice Project Pakistan and The Advocates for Human Rights-Iran Human RightsEnsemble contre la peine de mort; see also https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/2017YrEnd.pdf; www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5083102018ENGLISH.PDF; and www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/ACT5079552018ENGLISH.PDF, p. 8. See CCPR/C/PAK/CO/1, para. 18. UA PAK 9/2016 (https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=3359); and www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20593&LangID=E. See www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21841&LangID=E. See CRPD/C/IRN/CO/1, para. 22. 15